neutral_person
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,258
- Reaction score
- 0
Indian Congress Corruption... enough said
- Thread starter neutral_person
- Start date
ajtr
BANNED
- Joined
- May 25, 2010
- Messages
- 9,357
- Reaction score
- 0
Institutionalisation of Corruption under Congress
Atanu Dey wrote a great piece this week on how the Nehruvian economic philosophy may have cost us trillions of rupees in lost national income. The Economist had a special report on India in their latest issue where they seem to second Atanu’s opinion. “Economic part of the vision was a failure. Mahatma Gandhi, leader of the independence movement, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, and his daughter, Indira Gandhi, left the country with a reverence for poverty, a belief in self-reliance and an overweening state that together condemned the country to a dismal 3-4% increase in annual GDP — known as the “Hindu rate of growth” — for the best part of half a century”.
One could still argue that a socialist philosophy as advocated by Nehru had its supporters at that point in time and therefore he at least had the right intentions (howsoever wrong those intentions might have turned out to be). One subject however, on which I cannot let Nehru and the Congress party escape culpability is the institutionalisation of corruption in India. The last 5 years have been most damaging to India’s reputation as a democracy and as an investment destination for both domestic and foreign investors. We have witnessed corruption scandals worth unimaginable amounts. These scandals have led to India standing at rank 95 among 183 countries in the ‘Corruption Perception Index’ published by Transparency International in 2011. Some of the other emerging countries like China, Ghana, South Africa, Cuba and Costa Rica fare much better than us on this index. India’s score, at 3.1 in 2011, was a significant decline from the high of 3.5 in 2007. Our standing on corruption in the world, in many ways, reflects upon the performance of Congress or the Nehru-Gandhi family as they have directly or indirectly ruled India for most of the 65 years since independence at Central, State and Municipal levels.
It would be a mistake to believe that corruption in India is a recent phenomenon. The rot that we see in all branches of Government where corruption has more or less become institutionalised has set in gradually since even before Independence, under the Congress leadership. In 1939, none other than Mahatma Gandhi had said, “I would go to the length of giving the whole Congress a decent burial, rather than put up with the corruption that is rampant,” in response to the widespread corruption in Congress ministries formed under 1935 Act in six states in 1937.
Post Independence, it did not take long for the first scandal to break out. The ‘Jeep Scandal’ that captured Independent India’s imagination as her first scam involved a transaction concerning purchase of jeeps for the Army for Kashmir operation. The transaction was entered into by V K Krishna Menon — the then High Commissioner of India in London — with a foreign firm without observing normal procedure. Going against the demand of the Opposition for judicial inquiry as suggested by the Inquiry Committee, the Government led by Nehru announced on Sep 30, 1955 that the Jeep scandal case was closed. Union Minister G B Pant declared, “as far as Government was concerned it has made up its mind to close the matter. If the opposition was not satisfied, they can make it an election issue.”
This arrogant stand was driven in equal parts by a lack of opposition and Nehru’s tolerance for corruption and craving for loyalty. As a reward for Menon’s loyalty, he was inducted into the Nehru cabinet as a Minister without Portfolio. Eventually Menon rose to become the Defense Minister and under his leadership we lost the 1962 war to China. As Defense Minister, Menon had repeatedly declined the Army’s request for safeguarding India against Chinese aggression saying that the real enemy was Pakistan and not China. When the Chinese attacked, we were caught napping.
Nehru further showed his embrace of corruption in the judicial inquiry into the charges against Pratap Singh Kairon. The inquiry was held after an indictment was handed out by the Supreme Court in a case filed by a Punjab Civil Surgeon. It was the first ever judicial inquiry into charges of corruption, set up against a Chief Minister in office by the Government of India. The commission concluded that “There is no getting away from the fact that Kairon knew or had ample reason to suspect that his sons and relatives were allegedly exploiting his influence and powers. In view of his inaction in the face of the circumstances herein before alluded to, he must be held to have connived at the doings of his sons and relatives, his colleagues and the government officers.”
Nehru reacted to this matter by saying “The question thus arises as to whether the Chief Minister is compelled to resign because of the adverse findings on some questions of fact by the Supreme Court. The ministers are collectively responsible to the legislature. Therefore, the matter was one, which concerned the Assembly. As a rule therefore, the question of removing a minister would not arise unless the legislature expressed its wish by a majority vote.” Supported by Nehru, Kairon’s initial reaction was to stick to his office in spite of the adverse verdict. But when Lal Bahadur Shastri got the report published, Kairon had no option but to quit.
These two instances are important for us to reflect on. These two cases clearly demonstrate how Nehru not only had a high tolerance for corruption but also how he created a culture where nepotism was an acceptable way of life and how corruption was never a deterrent to the advancement of political career of the culprit. We see the same philosophy in play in the current UPA Government everyday. UPA leadership always reacts with disdain to the demands of resignations of corrupt ministers, choosing rather to keep promoting the corrupt.
As recently as 1993, when the nation was deep into the Bofors Scandal probe, Congress showed its embrace of corruption by deciding to abstain from voting on Justice V Ramaswami’s impeachment proceedings. Ramaswami was the first judge in India to face impeachment proceedings and had been found guilty on 11 of 13 counts by the committee constituted by the Parliament.
Ever since, there has been no looking back. Corruption today starts right at the traffic light and ration card offices and stretches all the way to telecom and mining licenses. We, as common men are forced to pay to get services that are rightfully ours — electricity connection or pension claims post retirement. Price control, complex and opaque regulations, outdated election laws, an antique and ineffective criminal law and layers upon layers of bureaucracy have created a huge black market and unorganised economy where a privileged few win and politicians keep escaping accountability.
Given the increasing fragmentation of political parties at the regional level along caste, religion and linguistic lines, no political party with a strong anti-corruption and grassroots reform message seems to be in a position to capture the imagination of the electorate and decidedly win the 2014 elections. One is forced to enter into alliances with regional parties and this hampers the implementation of a strong and effective common vision. We cannot rest on the laurels of past democratic success while this shameless looting of the country goes on and a majority of law-abiding citizens continue to clamor for potable water, electricity and roads.
We might very well be heading into the direction of a transformative social or political revolution that forces reforms at the grassroots level. Such a grass roots movement in my mind would demand stronger oversight bodies, an independent and well-equipped police force, overhauling and modernisation of our criminal law, an efficient judiciary and an overall demand for a change in our political and economic philosophy where we get rid of the Government’s control on our lives.
Atanu Dey wrote a great piece this week on how the Nehruvian economic philosophy may have cost us trillions of rupees in lost national income. The Economist had a special report on India in their latest issue where they seem to second Atanu’s opinion. “Economic part of the vision was a failure. Mahatma Gandhi, leader of the independence movement, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, and his daughter, Indira Gandhi, left the country with a reverence for poverty, a belief in self-reliance and an overweening state that together condemned the country to a dismal 3-4% increase in annual GDP — known as the “Hindu rate of growth” — for the best part of half a century”.
One could still argue that a socialist philosophy as advocated by Nehru had its supporters at that point in time and therefore he at least had the right intentions (howsoever wrong those intentions might have turned out to be). One subject however, on which I cannot let Nehru and the Congress party escape culpability is the institutionalisation of corruption in India. The last 5 years have been most damaging to India’s reputation as a democracy and as an investment destination for both domestic and foreign investors. We have witnessed corruption scandals worth unimaginable amounts. These scandals have led to India standing at rank 95 among 183 countries in the ‘Corruption Perception Index’ published by Transparency International in 2011. Some of the other emerging countries like China, Ghana, South Africa, Cuba and Costa Rica fare much better than us on this index. India’s score, at 3.1 in 2011, was a significant decline from the high of 3.5 in 2007. Our standing on corruption in the world, in many ways, reflects upon the performance of Congress or the Nehru-Gandhi family as they have directly or indirectly ruled India for most of the 65 years since independence at Central, State and Municipal levels.
It would be a mistake to believe that corruption in India is a recent phenomenon. The rot that we see in all branches of Government where corruption has more or less become institutionalised has set in gradually since even before Independence, under the Congress leadership. In 1939, none other than Mahatma Gandhi had said, “I would go to the length of giving the whole Congress a decent burial, rather than put up with the corruption that is rampant,” in response to the widespread corruption in Congress ministries formed under 1935 Act in six states in 1937.
Post Independence, it did not take long for the first scandal to break out. The ‘Jeep Scandal’ that captured Independent India’s imagination as her first scam involved a transaction concerning purchase of jeeps for the Army for Kashmir operation. The transaction was entered into by V K Krishna Menon — the then High Commissioner of India in London — with a foreign firm without observing normal procedure. Going against the demand of the Opposition for judicial inquiry as suggested by the Inquiry Committee, the Government led by Nehru announced on Sep 30, 1955 that the Jeep scandal case was closed. Union Minister G B Pant declared, “as far as Government was concerned it has made up its mind to close the matter. If the opposition was not satisfied, they can make it an election issue.”
This arrogant stand was driven in equal parts by a lack of opposition and Nehru’s tolerance for corruption and craving for loyalty. As a reward for Menon’s loyalty, he was inducted into the Nehru cabinet as a Minister without Portfolio. Eventually Menon rose to become the Defense Minister and under his leadership we lost the 1962 war to China. As Defense Minister, Menon had repeatedly declined the Army’s request for safeguarding India against Chinese aggression saying that the real enemy was Pakistan and not China. When the Chinese attacked, we were caught napping.
Nehru further showed his embrace of corruption in the judicial inquiry into the charges against Pratap Singh Kairon. The inquiry was held after an indictment was handed out by the Supreme Court in a case filed by a Punjab Civil Surgeon. It was the first ever judicial inquiry into charges of corruption, set up against a Chief Minister in office by the Government of India. The commission concluded that “There is no getting away from the fact that Kairon knew or had ample reason to suspect that his sons and relatives were allegedly exploiting his influence and powers. In view of his inaction in the face of the circumstances herein before alluded to, he must be held to have connived at the doings of his sons and relatives, his colleagues and the government officers.”
Nehru reacted to this matter by saying “The question thus arises as to whether the Chief Minister is compelled to resign because of the adverse findings on some questions of fact by the Supreme Court. The ministers are collectively responsible to the legislature. Therefore, the matter was one, which concerned the Assembly. As a rule therefore, the question of removing a minister would not arise unless the legislature expressed its wish by a majority vote.” Supported by Nehru, Kairon’s initial reaction was to stick to his office in spite of the adverse verdict. But when Lal Bahadur Shastri got the report published, Kairon had no option but to quit.
These two instances are important for us to reflect on. These two cases clearly demonstrate how Nehru not only had a high tolerance for corruption but also how he created a culture where nepotism was an acceptable way of life and how corruption was never a deterrent to the advancement of political career of the culprit. We see the same philosophy in play in the current UPA Government everyday. UPA leadership always reacts with disdain to the demands of resignations of corrupt ministers, choosing rather to keep promoting the corrupt.
As recently as 1993, when the nation was deep into the Bofors Scandal probe, Congress showed its embrace of corruption by deciding to abstain from voting on Justice V Ramaswami’s impeachment proceedings. Ramaswami was the first judge in India to face impeachment proceedings and had been found guilty on 11 of 13 counts by the committee constituted by the Parliament.
Ever since, there has been no looking back. Corruption today starts right at the traffic light and ration card offices and stretches all the way to telecom and mining licenses. We, as common men are forced to pay to get services that are rightfully ours — electricity connection or pension claims post retirement. Price control, complex and opaque regulations, outdated election laws, an antique and ineffective criminal law and layers upon layers of bureaucracy have created a huge black market and unorganised economy where a privileged few win and politicians keep escaping accountability.
Given the increasing fragmentation of political parties at the regional level along caste, religion and linguistic lines, no political party with a strong anti-corruption and grassroots reform message seems to be in a position to capture the imagination of the electorate and decidedly win the 2014 elections. One is forced to enter into alliances with regional parties and this hampers the implementation of a strong and effective common vision. We cannot rest on the laurels of past democratic success while this shameless looting of the country goes on and a majority of law-abiding citizens continue to clamor for potable water, electricity and roads.
We might very well be heading into the direction of a transformative social or political revolution that forces reforms at the grassroots level. Such a grass roots movement in my mind would demand stronger oversight bodies, an independent and well-equipped police force, overhauling and modernisation of our criminal law, an efficient judiciary and an overall demand for a change in our political and economic philosophy where we get rid of the Government’s control on our lives.
Similar threads
